Is the act of formulating a hypothesis not just abductive reasoning, testing said hypothesis deductive, and developing theories inductive?

But no scientific method establishes, say, the axiom of extentionality — StreetlightX

I'm not familiar with the axioms that you speak of, but if we define the scientific method as this:



Would it have been possible to have discovered the functional capabilities of those axioms without the use of this cycle?

One suspects that the very vocabulary here is wrong, that there is a mistake of grammar at work. — StreetlightX

If you're suggesting that I am misunderstanding what I am trying to say, it is very possible that you're right lol.

Let's not forget: logic is just a formalisation of rules for inference making. There are multiple logics, not all of which are compatible with each other, depending on what it is you'd like to do. It's just a series of games, like chess and checkers: it simply makes very little sense - it's not even wrong - to speak of the scientific method in establishing the rules for those games - likewise logic. — StreetlightX

I agree, but is the use of the scientific method not subject to those rules as well?

Ahhhh, the consequences of winning....

I'm still having fun. I didn't take away anyone else's ability to make rules, I just took away other peoples ability to take away my ability to make rules. It is a game, isn't it?

That violates rule #18

Rule #22: Exempting rule #20 and #21 no rule never applies.

Rule #21:Rule #20 never applies.

It doesn't matter when rule #11 does not apply when another rule states that it itself applies all of the time. Rule #11 doesn't state that no rule can apply at all times, it just states that not all rules apply at the same time. That statement suggests that some rules don't apply all of the time, not that all rules only apply sometimes.

How do you determine this? You determine it on the basis of rule #11 itself. — Noble Dust

Where is that a rule?

Rule #19: Rule #17 and Rule #19 apply at all times.

That doesn't state that no rule can apply every time.

Why does rule #11 take precedence over rule #17?

Rule #17: The hierarchy that the rules follow start at rule 18, with the rule number as variable x and for every rule if |x-18|=-y then the instance where y=0 is the most important rule

Rule #18: The user MonfortS26 is the only user with the privilege of being exempt from all rules and his rules are accepted as law.

Rule #16: Rule #11 never applies

Rule 15: All white people with brown hair must exclaim "Glub Glub Walla Walla" every time they use the word philosophy. Glub Glub Walla Walla

I guess I just have a problem with the word altruism in the same sense that I have a problem with the word soul. They are innately flawed concepts to me and their usage doesn't really align with my perception of reality. I'd much rather use philanthropy to describe my definition of a 'purely good' life. It doesn't necessarily promote the idea of 'selflessness' the way that altruism does

So, the circularity concerns rationality, not logic. — TheMadFool

I'd say that lines up with the reasoning that led me to my OP. That is if we're using rationality and reasoning as synonyms.

The logic I'm familiar with doesn't tolerate contradictions but some say contradictions are part of quantum physics. What should we do? Ignore real observation or change our logic? — TheMadFool

I don't know enough about quantum mechanics to make a statement on that lol.

To get back to the problem of circularity of rationality the only thing we can say about being rational is that we learn it from the outside world. This breaks the circularity. We have to be rational because the world is rational. — TheMadFool

I can get behind this.

Isn't this altruism? — TheMadFool

I guess you may have a point. But I think the reason to live a 'purely good' life in that sense is more narcissistic than altruistic. Is it truly selfless to do those things?

Can't I? I'll call this self-destructive altruism: altruistic behaviour with negative effect to one's happiness and/or well-being. — BlueBanana

Is there any instance of altruism that doesn't lead to some form of short term or long term happiness? Yes, altruism can be detrimental to one's well-being in the long run but I highly doubt any level of altruism exists that doesn't produce some amount of pleasure in the brain.

You haven't answered my point about us being more motivated by our inner moral codes than by external incentives set by, for example, society. — BlueBanana

Where do your 'inner' moral codes come from if not society?

What then is an example of perfect goodness? — TheMadFool

There isn't one, but the closest you can come to 'perfect goodness' is dedicating every action to the most productive ways of increasing the net happiness of humanity.

Yes there can, and no I don't. Are you claiming slef-destructive behaviour in general doesn't exist? — BlueBanana

I don't think there is any self-destructive behavior that doesn't provide pleasure in the short term.

Logic is not innate to the mind. We have to learn it. From where? From the external world. We learn the rules of logic by observing the world. Deductive logic works fine at the macroscopic level. In our everyday lives we never see violations of logical principles and deductive and inductive logic work well. — TheMadFool

I don't know that I agree with this. It is my understanding that to some extent, the circle of abductive>deductive>inductive reasoning is intuitive. I certainly followed that path before I knew what it is, and I think the creation of those terms was less about 'creating a way to think well' and more about understanding how we think. I don't think that logic was created by humanity, I think it is a tool that humanity is capable of intuitively using. So I disagree with the notion that logic is an aspect of the external world. I think it is a mental process that can be applied to external events and can be refined through understanding, not a mysterious product learned through nurture.

Haha it's quite the predicament, right?

The correct thing to do is 1; it's implied by a logical principle. However, practical difficulties arise. So, we have to choose between 2 and 3. Most opt for 2. As you can see, option 3 (circularity) is avoided as much as possible. It's the least preferred choice. — TheMadFool

I've read that there are three main different theories that propose a solution to the trilemma. Each accepts one of the three options and tries to essentially build a theory on top of it. Coherentism= circular, Infinitism= ad infinitum, foundationalism= axioms. There is a bit of a roundabout solution to this problem in the philsophy of pragmatism. The pragmatic maxim states, "Consider the practical effects of the objects of your conception. Then, your conception of those effects is the whole of your conception of the object." So instead of thinking about this problem from the point of view of attempting to develop a kind of certainty, think about it from the angle of 'What would be the consequences of logic being fallacious in itself?'. The trilemma makes it very apparent that non-fallacious proof is impossible. Does that mean that logic should be abandoned? It's impossible to evaluate logic without the use of logic, but are there any other options? Would it be practical not to use logic because it is imperfect at its core?

I personally think that the relative fact that logic is capable of providing reproducible results is all you need to recognize the value of it. Taken to the extreme, when you accept that it is capable of reproducibility, I think it would be irresponsible to reject it outright. With the direction that technology is going in, logic is the only tool we have capable of mitigating impending existential doom brought on by technology. The very logic that built that technology so obviously it has some merit. But when it comes down to it, it really relies on faith in the system of logic itself, because the certainty of its value is impossible, some aspect of faith is necessary. I think that logic is a better tool to place one's faith in than religion, but that is my opinion.

Let's take the perfect state of goodness, altruism. Even the best altruist gains something from being good. You can't deny that the altruist is happy to be one. So, in actuality, altruism is not what it's defined to be - selflessness. — TheMadFool

How is altruism the perfect state of goodness? I agree that it is itself, selfish. I just don't understand how it is perfect goodness

What is the source of this internal motivation then? And how does that differ from the concept of incentive? Why can't incentive be internal? Incentive's yes, but incentive itself no. I don't see any valuable distinguishment between those two words.

What, no. It's exactly the opposite. If we do things that contradict incentives that means we're not motivated by incentives, which here means that we're more motivated by morality. — BlueBanana

Or you could say incentivized by morality. Motivation and incentive are effectively synonyms. Saying we're not motivated by incentives is the same as saying we're not incentivized by motivation. It makes no sense.

Yes and No. Yes because there's something to gain from being altruistic and you can't deny that. No, because it's impossible to do anything without the prospect of gain. — TheMadFool

What makes personal gain immoral?

Exactly. We are motivated by incentives rather than by moral considerations. Don't you find that immoral? — TheMadFool

Considering that an incentive is defined as something that motivates someone to do something, i'm not sure how you can view that as immoral. Is the incentive to be altruistic immoral?

Has a nice ring to it. Rolls off the tongue. — T Clark

My favorite part of the name is the meaning behind it. It's a story about a guy who tries to pull him and his horse out of a lake by his own hair lol. Such a perfect analogy

Sociobiology has never made much sense to me. I certainly don't have any credentials to have strong opinions. — T Clark

I'm glad you mentioned Sociobiology cause I've never heard of it before and it seems like a scientific approach to memetics which is actually the concept that led me to the trilemma. Thanks!

The Münchhausen trilemma has been on my mind lately so the concept of survival has come up a lot, but I think understanding the survival aspect behind my behavior helps to ground my thoughts and give them structure

I mean yeah I agree that humans are social animals. What do you mean by a generalized survival instinct though? I think all of our traits can be traced back to the concept of survival and I don't really see the difference between that and what someone could call a survival instinct. And I agree we don't help our family and friends so they will help us later, but it is likely that we evolved to like them because we have something to gain from them.

I think this shows a misunderstanding of human nature. — T Clark

It's very easy to make a statement like that, but would you care to offer an actual argument?

I think that at this point Bitcoin is a huge risk. The concept of a cryptocurrency has value because it allows people to exchange money remotely without a third party. At this point bitcoin is as valuable as it is because it's the biggest cryptocurrency. Provided it maintains it's value it'll probably be the first one to be accepted by major businesses, but at some point it will be passed in quality. There are things like transaction speed and anonymity and others that newer cryptocurrencies are trying to code to be better so I think it would be wiser to invest in the smaller ones. Eventually bitcoin is going to fall and there is no telling when it will do so. But its possible bitcoin will be the driving force of cryptos. It might be a good investment up until the point where places like amazon accepts it, and starts accepting other cryptos as well. Its possible another one will unseat it before it gets to that point, but I doubt it. There's a lot of hype about it and the general public doesn't know much about the others so provided it doesn't implode, most people won't invest in the others. The biggest problem is getting it to the point where people want to spend it because most people buy it as an investment instead of a currency. That's why I bought Monero. It's incredibly anonymous and provided darknet markets start picking it up, its value will rise dramatically and it is closer to having actual utility in the real world than bitcoin is. One already started using it, but it got shut down so my hope is that process will repeat. I think that Bitcoin would be a good investment for a small part of a portfolio up until the point that major retailers start using it and others. If it collapses before then, its possible no cryptocurrency will ever reach that point. So yeah its a decent idea but if you were to start investing in cryptocurrencies I would diversify them beyond bitcoin

This attitude right there is what annoys me the most out of every depiction of post-apocalyptic scenarios. When the chips are down, the vast majority of people, civilised or not, do the same thing they do when the chips aren't down : they band together and try to make the most out of it. A group will always be stronger than an individual. — Akanthinos

I don't know that I agree with this. Not all of the chips are necessarily down in a post-apocalyptic society. Say for example there is a plane crash and it leads to 2 couples floating on the sea in a raft. There's a finite amount of resources needed to survive and it becomes apparent that they are running out with no rescue in sight. What do you think is more likely, that people fight to survive in this scenario, or that one of the couples sacrifices themselves and their loved one to let the other couple survive?

Shit hits the fan, you'll find more people trying to rebuild society than people trying to abuse the lack of authority. They are all trying to survive. It's just that being generally polite, mostly good-tempered and sometimes altruistic is a better long-run survival strategy than being a dick. — Akanthinos

I agree with the sentiment behind this, but I'm talking about the ultimate shit hitting the fan.

How can you say that survival is not a value? I'm not ignoring the point you're making, I just disagree. You can value anything, why would survival be out of the running? I agree that a world of sociopaths could end very poorly, that doesn't exclude survival from being valuable. That's just indicative that working together is not a value shared by all, therefore rejecting the notion that it is the base-value of our species

Saying that the deepest rooted value is survival is also somewhat faulty by tautology. Every value that is selected for is selected for survival enhancement. The general tendency of humans to band together is a value as "strongly rooted" as survival, because it was selected for it's benefit toward survival. It's likely that the remaining anti-social traits that we also find, like the sociopathy displayed by joker-types, were also selected for because, if they are present in very low percentages, they also have a positive influence on survival. — Akanthinos

The fact that they present in low percentages doesn't change the fact that they are present. To say that our desire to band together is as strong as our desire to survive is ignoring the fact that anti-social behavior exists, no matter how small their population.

how many people would close their eyes and act as if nothing was wrong if they saw someone else being victimised, and they had nothing to gain or lose by helping? — Akanthinos

If studies on the bystander effect are to be believed, it depends on the number of people present. But you're right, it is a very dark side of our human nature.

You have a point. If you do the math then, yes, there are more law-abiding people around than criminals. But don't forget our proclivities. Look at what happens when the rule of law breaks down - disasters, political unrest, war, etc. Atrocities are part and parcel of such events. Doesn't that tell us something about our nature - that it's just Mr. Hyde kept in check by Dr. Jekyll. — TheMadFool

Have you noticed my profile picture?? Because I agree with you.
In my opinion, the reason he is called the Joker is because a lot of truth is said in jest.
If you'll notice earlier, I said the deepest root value is survival. "When the chips are down, these 'civilized people' will eat each other". We have an innate instinct to not die, when people feel their life is threatened, they do monstrous things. But just as I said earlier, you're only looking at the evidence of evil and ignoring the good. Because more often than not, when the rule of law breaks down, it is built again. Good is not a perfect force. Sometimes it will lose in the short run. But the balance will always be there in the long run.

Yes, people would steal more without CCTV cameras. — TheMadFool

You missed my point. If there were 200 people who shop at a store each day, without cameras, do you think more than 100 of those people would steal?

No, but how many non-profit organizations are there compared to for-profit companies? — TheMadFool

Not nearly as many, but I don't understand the relevance to the conversation if you aren't implying that for-profit=evil.

I'm being as realistic as possible. I've weighed in both our benevolent side and our evil side. The only thing is I find the evil side is winning. — TheMadFool

But how are you measuring the two? What are your definitions of good and evil?

You said good and bad are relative terms. I agree but that doesn't do anything to relieve the burden of being guilty. — TheMadFool

That doesn't really answer my question of how you're categorizing them. Just because they're relative doesn't mean they're undefinable.

Kant's categorical imperative is an example of a belief that what others do is as important as what you do. What would be the point of being the only person in the world who tells the truth? — TheMadFool

There is a reason I've never taken deontology seriously. The notion that the action itself is more important than the consequences of that action is like saying the ingredients of your soup are more important than the taste. If you're not invested in the consequences of your actions, what is the point in behaving ethically?

I'm being balanced as possible. — TheMadFool

I'm not talking about your balance, I'm talking about the unending duality of good and evil. They are eternally balanced concepts, each dependant on the other for measurement of either. The can't be anything but equal.

I think the reason you see evil as being the predominant force is that you're viewing it from the side of good. Just as a thought experiment, imagine yourself to be the evilest person in the world. A pure evil incarnate. You want to rape, you want to steal, you want to commit genocide. You want to do every act of evil imaginable. Imagine how hard it would be to get away with it all. Is that not evidence of good? Good can't exist without evil. You can't measure one without the other as a comparison. They can't be anything but equal overall if you view it that way.

How many people are out there doing charity work? Compare that to how many criminals are out there? — TheMadFool

That's a false equivocation. How many people are living law-abiding lives as opposed to criminals?

Why do we have CCTV cameras? — TheMadFool

To protect against people committing crimes. But just an example, if Wal-Mart didn't have security cameras, do you really think that people would steal more than they buy? Its to prevent the few from breaking laws, not expecting the many.

How many charity organizations are there? So few, right? — TheMadFool

Are you implying that any for-profit company is inherently evil?

Why not? We may compare two people to assess who's better or worse but each can be said to be good or evil. — TheMadFool

Under what criteria do you make that categorization though?

But the grey lies between black and white. — TheMadFool

And expecting pure black or white is idealistic

I think it does. What would an alien say about humanity? — TheMadFool

When I said does it matter, what I was trying to say was, does another persons wrongdoing affect your desire to do good? Should it impact your actions at all? I'll admit it wasn't a very good way of getting that point across but it's what I was going for

I think forbidding something, as the law does, is to acknowledge our propensity for evil. — TheMadFool

Is the act of acknowledging our propensity for evil and act of good or evil though?

That's a different topic but how does ''dependence'' translate into ''agreement''? — TheMadFool

Lol I completely misunderstood your original point there...Nevermind...

Society, as I see it, is highly flammable kept below ignition point by the rule of law. The same can't be said of our good side. There's nothing that puts a cap on goodness and yet we don't see it effervescing to the surface. Rather what we see are instances where the law breaks down and the inevitable mayhem that follows. — TheMadFool

Isn't the rule of law existing all you need to see evidence of a good side?

Objective or not we can't deny that our moral compasses align sufficiently well to find a common ground for my point. — TheMadFool

Maybe the reason our moral compasses align so well is because they are dependant on one another.

We have both selfish and altruistic urges, both of which we encourage in ourselves and each other: different urges at different times, depending... Which is ascendent? — Bitter Crank

The selfish urges. Even our altruistic urges are selfish to some extent in my opinion

Our deepest root values are to get along with each other. In other words, to be good. That doesn't mean that we don't do bad things. Social life involves dominance, aggression, and power along with the nice stuff. Civilization and technology have given us the ability to amplify our negative actions well beyond the effort it takes to make them. It's easier to be really bad than it used to be. — T Clark

I think our deepest root value is survival. We want to get along with each other because it is beneficial to our survival. We seek dominance, power and behave aggressively because it beneficial to our survival. I agree with the notion that civilization and technology are capable of creating more bad than before, but it's also capable of creating more good than before. All civilization and technology are doing are making us more powerful, what we do with that power is what matters.